Skip to content


Timki @ Kishan Natharmal Mirchandani Vs. M.V. Chitalay, Assistant Commissioner of Police and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Writ Petition No. 311 of 1984
Judge
Reported in1984(2)BomCR680
ActsBombay Police Act, 1951 - Sections 56 and 59
AppellantTimki @ Kishan Natharmal Mirchandani
RespondentM.V. Chitalay, Assistant Commissioner of Police and anr.
Appellant AdvocateR.P. Desai, Adv. for ;M.B. Desai, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.Y. Mirza, P.P.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....identical to the powers of a police officer under the provisions of the criminal procedure code. - desai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the very notice is bad in law being blissfully vague......engaged in the commission of offences of robberies by extorting money at the point of knife, which offences fall under chapters x, xvi and xvii of the indian penal code.(b) that since 1979 you are engaged in the commission of offences of assaults on residents and/or shop keepers of that locality or those areas which offences fall under chapters xvi and xvii of the indian penal code.'2. the principal contention of smt. desai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the very notice is bad in law being blissfully vague. we see considerable merit in this submission. it is true that in such notices mentioning of names of victims or witnesses, actual dates and the details of the offences committed is not possible for it is likely to defeat the very object of externment. but this does.....
Judgment:

V.A. Mohta, J.

1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-detenu has challenged the order of externment dated 23rd January, 1984 passed in pursuance of notice under sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act, dated 20th October, 1983, containing the following allegations :

'(a) that since 1979 in the locality or those area, you are engaged in the commission of offences of robberies by extorting money at the point of knife, which offences fall under Chapters X, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code.

(b) that since 1979 you are engaged in the commission of offences of assaults on residents and/or shop keepers of that locality or those areas which offences fall under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code.'

2. The principal contention of Smt. Desai, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the very notice is bad in law being blissfully vague. We see considerable merit in this submission. It is true that in such notices mentioning of names of victims or witnesses, actual dates and the details of the offences committed is not possible for it is likely to defeat the very object of externment. But this does not mean that notice can be so vague as to almost prohibit the externee from giving proper explanation. We find even the general nature of the material against the detenu absent in the notice. As a result the notice is clearly bad in law and consequently the externment order which also is not less vague, is quashed and set aside.

3. In the result, the externment order is quashed and the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //